Archived Version: November 2, 2010

An information resource for Washington voters

Richard Sanders

Washington Supreme Court

Position Six

Legal/Judicial Experience: First elected to Supreme Court in
1995; and reelected in 1998 and 2004. During my time on the Court, I
have written more opinions than any other Justice. Before that, I
practiced law for 26 years. I have also served as an adjunct professor
teaching appellate advocacy at the UW School of Law, and guest lectured
on state constitutional law at Seattle University.

Other Professional Experience: I am an Eagle Scout and once
played the French horn in the Rose Bowl.

Education: B.S. and J.D., University of Washington.

Community Service: I frequently lecture and have written many
legal articles and opinion pieces explaining our constitutional rights.

Statement: A Supreme Court Justice must uphold the highest
ethical standards, working to assure that government is open and the
rights of citizens are protected. It has been my honor to serve on our
state's highest court since 1995 and to follow these standards.

Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution states: "governments...are
established to protect and maintain individual rights." I believe that's
the job description of a Justice also: we must look out for the
individual citizen and protect our Constitutional rights. Sometimes this
makes me seem conservative, as when I support property rights, and
sometimes it makes me seem liberal, as when I call on the federal
government to end the unconstitutional treatment of prisoners. But I am
consistent: we have rights the government must not violate. Thomas
Jefferson said the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same
time. It's a good thought to remember.

Justice Sanders attracts support that cuts across the spectrum,
with endorsements including: Democratic and Republican Senators; the
State Republican and Libertarian Parties; judges and civil libertarians;
the Association of Washington Business and union members -- more than
1,000 endorsers.

Important note! Each of these organizations uses its own
standards and rating terms when evaluating candidates; please check their pages for further
information. We do not have ratings for candidates with an asterisk (*), and the reasons vary. Some
evaluations may still be in process, or we might not have received them yet; some candidates may not have been offered an opportunity to
participate, or they may have declined to participate. Again, please check the
organizations' pages for further details.

As the election approaches, Votingforjudges.org will include ratings and endorsements from
numerous organizations. We provide this information so that voters will be
better informed about the candidates. We do not rate or endorse any candidates;
the ratings and endorsements of organizations included at this site reflect the
views of those individual organizations and not necessarily the views of votingforjudges.org or its sponsors.